- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Paladin said to WJ:
Quote Geneva bible (1560); “the same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by it.” …Your reference to “any bible translation that has any credibility” shows a bias toward your use of ONLY those translations that agree with your biases. Because the earliest English translations certainly had “credibility” in their own generation.
To All,
Paladin has said that “the earliest English translations certainly had credibility in their own generation.” He gives the Geneva Bible (1560) as an example. It renders John 1:3 this way,Quote “the same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by it.” Paladin has overlooked the marginal note they give on John 1:1. It reads,
Quote Christ is God for all time There is another big note that Paladin missed. In verse 14 the Geneva Bible has a parenthetical phrase which identifies the Word as the “Son.” So we have TWO notations that Paladin missed: The first is a marginal note on 1:1 that says that Christ is the Word. The second is a parenthetical phrase in verse 14 that says that the Word is the Son. In other words, the Geneva Bible translators had to EXPLAIN their renderings. This would not have been necessary had they followed the rules of grammar.
What else has Paladin missed? I know I will be checking and posting.
See for yourself that the Geneva Bible translation does not support Paladin's conclusion that God and the Word are impersonal beings. Click below,
http://www.thedcl.org/bible/gb/john.pdf
thinker
To All,
Paladin notes also that the Tyndale Bible translates “it.”
Quote All thinges were made by it and with out it was made nothinge that was made. However, in verse 14 the Word is identified as the Son as it is in the Geneva Bible,
Quote And the worde was made flesshe and dwelt amonge vs and we sawe the glory of it as the glory of the only begotten sonne of ye father which worde was full of grace and verite. In verse 14 the word “son” is not in the Greek text. So the Tyndale translators were paraphrasing which indicates that they did NOT want the reader to take their rendering “it” wrongly as Paladin has done. Again, had they followed the rules of grammar they would not have needed to paraphrase. At any rate, Paladin has no support from the Tyndale translation that we should take the rendering “it” as proof that God or the Word is impersonal.
Click below to see Tyndale's translation
http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/tyndale/joh.txt
thinker
Quote (thethinker @ June 08 2009,14:28) To All, Paladin notes also that the Tyndale Bible translates “it.”
Quote All thinges were made by it and with out it was made nothinge that was made. However, in verse 14 the Word is identified as the Son as it is in the Geneva Bible,
Quote And the worde was made flesshe and dwelt amonge vs and we sawe the glory of it as the glory of the only begotten sonne of ye father which worde was full of grace and verite. In verse 14 the word “son” is not in the Greek text. So the Tyndale translators were paraphrasing which indicates that they did NOT want the reader to take their rendering “it” wrongly as Paladin has done. Again, had they followed the rules of grammar they would not have needed to paraphrase. At any rate, Paladin has no support from the Tyndale translation that we should take the rendering “it” as proof that God or the Word is impersonal.
Click below to see Tyndale's translation
http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/tyndale/joh.txt
thinker
Hi Jack
And if you notice in context verse 10 shows the translators went from the word “It” to…He was in ye worlde and the worlde was made by “him“: and yet the worlde knewe “him” not. vrs 10
Its amzaing how he thinks that these obscure translations prove anything.
Blessings WJ
To All,
I show you again that Paladin misreads the intent of the various translations he offers as “proof” that God and the Word is an “it.” He pointed out that the Bishop's Bible reads “it.”Quote All thynges were made by it: and without it, was made nothyng that was made. Again, the translators of the Bishop's Bible did not want to be misunderstood. They also identify the Word as the Son in verse 14.
Quote And the same word became fleshe, and dwelt among vs ( and we sawe the glory of it, as the glory of the only begotten sonne of the father) full of grace and trueth. They translated the Greek “monogenes” as “begotten Son.” According to Paladin this is “CREDIBLE”,
Paladin said to WJ:
Quote Because the earliest English translations certainly had “credibility” in their own generation. There it is friends. PALADIN'S OWN WORDS! The Bishop's Bible translation had “credibility in its own generation.” Paladin says so! Therefore, when they identified the Word as the Son by their rendering of “monogenes” as “begotten Son” IT WAS “CREDIBLE” FOR THAT GENERATION!
THE TRANSLATIONS PALADIN OFFERS DO NOT SUPPORT HIS THEORY THAT GOD AND THE WORD ARE IMPERSONAL.
Click below to read Bishop's Bible
http://www.studylight.org/desk….1&ncc=1
thinker
WorshippingJesus said;
Quote Hi Jack
And if you notice in context verse 10 shows the translators went from the word “It” to…He was in ye worlde and the worlde was made by “him”: and yet the worlde knewe “him” not. vrs 10
Its amzaing how he thinks that these obscure translations prove anything.
Blessings WJ
WJ,
I did notice but wanted to first see how Paladin was going to deal with my points. One can “prove” anything when one takes the Scriptures out of their context.thanks,
Jack
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 09 2009,05:08) There is another big note that Paladin missed. In verse 14 the Geneva Bible has a parenthetical phrase which identifies the Word as the “Son.” So we have TWO notations that Paladin missed: The first is a marginal note on 1:1 that says that Christ is the Word. The second is a parenthetical phrase in verse 14 that says that the Word is the Son. In other words, the Geneva Bible translators had to EXPLAIN their renderings. This would not have been necessary had they followed the rules of grammar.
KJ………..Well what would you expect to see, but “MARGINAL NOTES”. especially if a predisposed TRINITARIAN OR PREEXISTENCES translated it right KJ.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
